Help - no helmet insurance liability info

Richard said:

Dear all,

Have there been any instances where *in court of law* an insurance
company has *successfully* claimed contributory negligence by a cyclist
for not wearing a helmet? And if so, can anyone provide a reference,
please?

(In the UK, this is).

Conversely, in how many cases has that claim been disallowed, or the
insurance company backed down at the last minute? I'm only aware of the
case that sparked the CTC cyclist defence fund.

I need this information to oppose a helmet-compulsion rule with regard
to a workplace.

ta in advance,
R.

Start with http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1081 and
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1054

The whole site if full of useful information for your case.

Tony

Richard said:

Dear all,

Have there been any instances where *in court of law* an insurance
company has *successfully* claimed contributory negligence by a cyclist
for not wearing a helmet? And if so, can anyone provide a reference,
please?

(In the UK, this is).

Conversely, in how many cases has that claim been disallowed, or the
insurance company backed down at the last minute? I'm only aware of the
case that sparked the CTC cyclist defence fund.

I need this information to oppose a helmet-compulsion rule with regard
to a workplace.

ta in advance,
R.

Start with http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1081 and
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1054

The whole site if full of useful information for your case.

Tony

Tony Raven said:

Richard said:

Dear all,

Have there been any instances where *in court of law* an insurance
company has *successfully* claimed contributory negligence by a
cyclist for not wearing a helmet? And if so, can anyone provide a
reference, please?

(In the UK, this is).

Conversely, in how many cases has that claim been disallowed, or the
insurance company backed down at the last minute? I'm only aware of
the case that sparked the CTC cyclist defence fund.

I need this information to oppose a helmet-compulsion rule with regard
to a workplace.

ta in advance,
R.

Start with http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1081 and
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1054

Thanks Tony - I know about the cyclehelmets.org site, I'm pulling reams
of argument from it. Many thanks to the maintainers.

"Richard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I need this information to oppose a helmet-compulsion rule with regard to
a workplace.

Why not just walk your cycle when you reach the grounds of the workplace?

"Richard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dear all,

Have there been any instances where *in court of law* an insurance
company has *successfully* claimed contributory negligence by a cyclist
for not wearing a helmet? And if so, can anyone provide a reference,
please?

(In the UK, this is).

I found the following at
http://www.boyesturnerlegal.co.uk/claims/news.asp?step=3&pid=314:

"Firstly, the issue of cycle helmets. A cyclist who fails to wear a helmet
could find their damages are reduced if the defendants can establish that
their injuries would have been less severe if they had been wearing one -
even though helmet use is not compulsory in the UK. The landmark decision on
deductions from compensation for failing to wear a seatbelt dates from
1976 - before seatbelt use became compulsory.

There have been few direct decision on the issue of cycle helmets.

The substantial settlement in the case of Atkinson v Maynard [1996] was
reduced by 5% for failing to wear a helmet. This may sound inconsequential -
but a reduction of 5% of Mr Atkinson's damages was well over £50,000!

The case of A v Shorrock [2001] failed entirely - but the judge commented
that if it had succeeded he would not have reduced the claimant's damages
for failure to wear a helmet as he was not engaged in any particularly
hazardous kind of riding during which it might be thought prudent to wear a
helmet.

In Drinkall v Whitwood [2003] the defendants were permitted to withdraw
their previous settlement proposals (made in 2000) and seek a higher
reduction in the claimant's damages for failure to wear a cycle helmet."

Richard said:

Have there been any instances where *in court of law* an insurance
company has *successfully* claimed contributory negligence by a cyclist
for not wearing a helmet? And if so, can anyone provide a reference,
please?

Not 101% sure, but my understanding is that it has been tried but never
yet succeeded.

Quoted message said:

Conversely, in how many cases has that claim been disallowed, or the
insurance company backed down at the last minute? I'm only aware of the
case that sparked the CTC cyclist defence fund.

There is not going to be a reliable answer to this, because most cases
of insurers backing down will only be known to them and the people they
were arguing with.

Insurance companies make money in part by being as bloody awkward as
they possibly can if there's any chance of anything to gain by doing so.

Quoted message said:

I need this information to oppose a helmet-compulsion rule with regard
to a workplace.

I would ask the CTC: since they share your basic agenda one would hope
they have pretty good information. Roger Geffen is their campaigns man
IIRC.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Richard said:

Have there been any instances where *in court of law* an insurance
company has *successfully* claimed contributory negligence by a cyclist
for not wearing a helmet? And if so, can anyone provide a reference,
please?

John Franklin knows of none, in any country, but there may well be
some in the US which have not been reported here.

Quoted message said:

Conversely, in how many cases has that claim been disallowed, or the
insurance company backed down at the last minute? I'm only aware of the
case that sparked the CTC cyclist defence fund.

It is unlikely that we will ever know, as most of them remain sub
judice for some time after the case is heard (5 years, I'm told, is
normal).

Quoted message said:

I need this information to oppose a helmet-compulsion rule with regard
to a workplace.

Contact John Franklin (john at lesberries dot co dot uk) and Roger
Geffen (roger dot geffen at ctc dot org dot uk). They may be able to
send you a copy of the CTC's barrister's briefing notes on
contributory negligence claims.

Note that vehicle use on public roads is specifically exempted from
health & safety legislation. If they want to apply a lid rule, ask
them if they will also be extending the Health & Safety At Work Act to
cover the actions of staff while driving motor vehicles - this is
currently recommended as best practice, but I am not aware of anyone
actually doing it. The posties' lid rule is solely a uniform issue,
despite claims to the contrary.

There are no circumstances of which I am aware where the employer
could be held liable for an employee's injury sustained while cycling
on a public road, and I suspect that no such liability could be
enforced where hard hats are not already required.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Just zis Guy said:

It is unlikely that we will ever know, as most of them remain sub
judice for some time after the case is heard (5 years, I'm told, is
normal).

And an unknown number never get to the courts to start with, various
claims having a habit of mysteriously vanishing when bluffs get called...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Just zis Guy said:

The posties' lid rule is solely a uniform issue,
despite claims to the contrary.

When posties are caught cycling without the correct uniform there is an
official process that has to be gone through before they are dismissed.
One stage of this is counselling. Does anyone have any inside
information on what form this counselling takes? If it is on the
importance of always cycling in correct uniform, then I would have
thought the P.O. would have been on dodgy ground as they only seem to
apply this to one particular part of the unifrom while having a relaxed
attitude to it generally. If OTOH it is on the importance of wearing a
helmet while cycling I would have have thought they'd have been on
equally dodgy ground as: (a) it's supposed to be a uniform issue, not a
safety one, and (b) the safety benefits are highly questionable, and
may even be negative .

--
Dave...

dkahn400 said:

Just zis Guy said:

The posties' lid rule is solely a uniform issue,
despite claims to the contrary.

When posties are caught cycling without the correct uniform there is an
official process that has to be gone through before they are dismissed.
One stage of this is counselling. Does anyone have any inside
information on what form this counselling takes? If it is on the
importance of always cycling in correct uniform, then I would have
thought the P.O. would have been on dodgy ground as they only seem to
apply this to one particular part of the unifrom while having a relaxed
attitude to it generally.

IIRC there was a case a few years back of a Postie who was sacked for
wearing the wrong shorts, it made it onto the news. So they do appear to
be a little bit consistant.

Chris

Richard <[email hidden]> wrote:
....
| I need this information to oppose a helmet-compulsion rule with regard
| to a workplace.

If they say what they think a helmet should protect against you may be
able to challenge that that goes beyond the EU standard i.e. they don't
make 'em that strong so why make me wear one.

--
Patrick Herring, http://www.anweald.co.uk/ph

Quoted message said:

If they say what they think a helmet should protect against you may be
able to challenge that that goes beyond the EU standard i.e. they don't
make 'em that strong so why make me wear one.

I don't understand why they're making work for themselves - unnecessary
regulations means unnecessary enforcement.

Are they aware they don't need to insist on helmets? Something from the
health and safety executive thingummy should make 'em realise they're just
wasting company money.

"Richard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Have there been any instances where *in court of law* an insurance
company has *successfully* claimed contributory negligence by a cyclist
for not wearing a helmet? And if so, can anyone provide a reference,
please?

You mean a bit like: you're walking along the pavement minding your own
business, a vehicle mounts the pavement and runs over your foot damaging it
severely, the vehicles insurer claims contributory negligence because you're
not wearing steelies.
Or: you're walking along the pavement minding your own business, a ridge
tile falls from a roof landing on your bonce damaging it severely, the
property's insurer claims contributary negligence because you're not wearing
a hard hat.
Or: you're walking along the pavement minding your own business, some psycho
runs up and knifes you in the abdomen damaging it severely, the Criminal
Injuries Compensation Board claims contributory negligence because you're
not wearing a stab vest.....

Pete.

Peter B said:

Quoted message said:

Have there been any instances where *in court of law* an insurance
company has *successfully* claimed contributory negligence by a cyclist
for not wearing a helmet? And if so, can anyone provide a reference,
please?

You mean a bit like: you're walking along the pavement minding your own
business, a vehicle mounts the pavement and runs over your foot damaging it
severely, the vehicles insurer claims contributory negligence because you're
not wearing steelies.
Or: you're walking along the pavement minding your own business, a ridge
tile falls from a roof landing on your bonce damaging it severely, the
property's insurer claims contributary negligence because you're not wearing
a hard hat.
Or: you're walking along the pavement minding your own business, some psycho
runs up and knifes you in the abdomen damaging it severely, the Criminal
Injuries Compensation Board claims contributory negligence because you're
not wearing a stab vest.....

That's the sort of thing, yes. :-)

R.